My wife found a hilarious review of Dunkirk by a feminist named Mehera Bonner at Marie Claire: I Think ‘Dunkirk’ Was Mediocre at Best, and It’s Not Because I’m Some Naive Woman Who Doesn’t Get It As you can see from the title, Ms. Bonner wants you to know upfront that her objection to the movie isn’t that it sticks to the story and therefore offends her feminine sensibilities. She loves war movies!
[Dunkirk is] a story worthy of being told and re-told, and I really enjoy war movies in general, but still—actual stuff needs to happen. Stuff other than scenes of men burning in oil-covered water, ships sinking, and bodies drowning. If you want to argue that the non-stop violent intensity of the film was the point, and that we should feel fully immersed in the war like we’re living it ourselves—I present Harry Styles.
Nope. She isn’t another feminist bimbo who objects to stories that aren’t about women, or aren’t tarted up with out of place romance scenes featuring pop culture icons to keep the womenfolk entertained. She is cool like that.
What bothers her is her fear that other moviegoers (who aren’t totally chill like she is) won’t be able to see the movie and avoid squealing OMG, it’s Harry Styles!
The One Direction band member did a surprisingly impressive job in what turned out to be a pretty major role, but I refuse to believe it’s possible for any viewer with even a semblance of pop-culture knowledge not see him and immediately go “OMG, it’s Harry Styles.”
I haven’t yet seen the movie, but when I do I’ll be on the lookout to see if the men in the audience start to squeal when the aforementioned dreamboat makes his entrance. I’m not familiar with the band or the man, but it sounds like it should be pretty obvious when he appears on-screen.
But the fact that the main character is too dreamy for her totally non flighty sensibilities isn’t what most bothers Ms. Bonner about the movie. Her real problem is that it appeals to men, and reminds her of the kind of men who reject her:
But my main issue with Dunkirk is that it’s so clearly designed for men to man-out over. And look, it’s not like I need every movie to have “strong female leads.” Wonder Woman can probably tide me over for at least a year, and I understand that this war was dominated by brave male soldiers. I get that. But the packaging of the film, the general vibe, and the tenor of the people applauding it just screams “men-only”—and specifically seems to cater to a certain type of very pretentious man who would love nothing more than to explain to me why I’m wrong about not liking it. If this movie were a dating profile pic, it would be a swole guy at the gym who also goes to Harvard.
But enough about her, because, as she explained in the title, this isn’t about her objecting to a movie that breaks the current year mold by telling a story about men, in a way that unashamedly appeals to men. This isn’t about petty envy or the need to mark all spaces as feminine. Bonner explains in conclusion that she just thinks the movie would be much better if it focused on the kinds of inter-sectional feminist issues she personally finds so fascinating:
…to me, Dunkirk felt like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness—which apparently they don’t get to do enough. Fine, great, go forth, but if Nolan’s entire purpose is breaking the established war movie mold and doing something different—why not make a movie about women in World War II? Or—because I know that will illicit cries of “ugh, not everything has to be about feminism, ugh!”—how about any other marginalized group?
Update: I’ve now seen the movie, and have written my thoughts on it. There was no sobbing or squealing, and Merlin was magnificent.
I saw the film last week – I highly recommend it. However, I would warn you in advance it is unlike any film, war genre or not, you have ever seen. Nolan made a very apolitical film devoid of sentimentalism or a patronizing moral message that gets shoved own your throat, and to do that for a WW2 film in the Current Year is unspeakable.
As to the feminist writer in question and film review, these people are just vile, disgusting creatures that won’t stop bitching because they’re miserable and soulless. They are just screaming for someone to tell them to STFU.
“But my main issue with Dunkirk is…”
Sorry, Dear. We don’t care…
And you cannot even comment on this drivel without running afoul of Farcebook’s idiotic PC BS.
Wretched broads like this deserve a really hard backhand.
Pingback: Does this mean there wasn’t any sobbing? | @the_arv
We get it feminists…you hate men and women who like men. You inject it into everything.
“Illicit”.
Tell me again how smart you are, honey.
I have no idea who that is…but I’d guess he makes the young ladies squeal and that just grates on feminist ears.
Eh, the left is not liking Dunkirk, that’s for sure.
There have been two very negative reviews in The Guardian about the film — one from a male reviewer who just doesn’t seem to like Nolan very much, but who also made the requisite leftist critiques of “whitewashing”, and then another by a South Asian British female writer who thought the film was a Brexit justification, with Olde England escaping from being tied down in Europe. And then there was the NYT review by Manola Dargis which viewed the film as a reminder that fascism still must be defeated in the world by force (I mean, really? So Dunkirk is about Richard Spencer and his hundreds of followers, or about Steve Bannon, or something like that?).
The message is clear from the cultural left: anything that does not promote their narrative, and their narrative only (ie, multulturalism, feminism, intersectionality, anti-tradition, anti-history that is not extremely critical, etc.) will be subject to substantial critique from the cultural left. Truly they are today’s totalitarians, without any question.
Nolan made a film that was bending over backwards not to be political. Heck he doesn’t even name the Germans, the Nazis or show them at any point in the film, and he doesn’t emphasize the political situation in London much at all other than in passing here and there (although big things were happening, with Churchill having just stepped in). No, he made the film about what was happening there on that beach, the human story of survival without obvious political over- or under-tones. And that, friends, is a capital crime to the totalitarians of the left. Very telling.
Oh, and Harry Styles isn’t even a main character in the film. He comes up about halfway through, as I recall, and isn’t one of the main characters in any of the three main threads in the film. Of course it isn’t surprising that he was a big focus of Bonner’s eyes, but that says more about her than it does about Nolan or his fine film.
Just don’t care.
Another femcunt broad who cannot stand the celebration of masculine bravery and sacrifice.
Don’t care. I’ll support this movie and shit on wonder women.
I’ve seen it – and I promise no spoilers for those who have little historical knowledge like Mehera Bonner at Marie Claire – or is that Marie Claire at Mehera Bonner?
She loves war movies! She may, buy she doesn’t know much about them if this review is to be the guide.
non-stop violent intensity Nope. It’s actually quite reined in, and kudos to Nolan for the lack of extensive computer generated material. Only a person virtually unacquainted with actual (or really even war movie) violence could paste that label on this movie.
“OMG, it’s Harry Styles.” Didn’t know him either, and can’t recognize him from the photo she provided as he doesn’t ring a bell. At any rate, no men, and there were quite a few present (women also) had any noticeable remarks about any characters, so I presume that includes Harry.
explain to me why I’m wrong about not liking it We don’t care whether you like it, the point is that all your assertions about it are wrong.
Dunkirk felt like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness Interesting notion given that some of the characters are shall I say, notable for their lack of heroic fighting spirit. Others do in fact exhibit the courage, honor, commitment and sangfroid under fire that both men and women tend to be able to admire and even celebrate; but I suppose not Ms. Bonner/Claire.
why not make a movie about women in World War II? Actually there are a plethora of war movies featuring women, even to include SIW types; but plenty will never be enough I’m sure.
actual stuff needs to happen Oh now I get it, she and I saw different pictures, or perhaps read different history books.
“I haven’t yet seen the movie, but when I do I’ll be on the lookout to see if the men in the audience start to squeal when the aforementioned dreamboat makes his entrance.”
Of course teen girls and pervy ole cougars are going to squeal. Horny little tartlets objectifying poor Harry Styles. Meanwhile, I can’t enjoy commenting on how sexy and “empowered” Latina weather girls look in their slim figures, high heels, and overall feminine figure without feminists calling me a woman hating misogynist asshole on Facebook who should be ashamed of seeing women in general as sex objects and wondering if I have a mother or sisters.
Also, in all fairness, I’m not being sarcastic when I say they should make a movie about the women who stayed behind to help assemble the Arsenal of Democracy. Except for one, feminists would concede that these women, as much sacrifice as they did themselves, were the backup to the men fighting, and to them, the word “concede” cannot exist. Two, at the end of the day, it was men who died fighting and it was their mothers who had to receive their bodies in a casket. Too patriarchal. Three, they’re going to wait for men in suits in studios to help them out instead of doing the movie themselves. And lastly, how much you wanna bet they’ll have Lena Dunham and Amy Schumer in acting roles.
Speaking of movies that are not straitjacketed into the new female-centric mold – my oldest son and I went to see Baby Driver, and I really enjoyed the action, the subtext, the actors, and the music- and that movie is NOT all about the women, like so many films are these days.
It’s a good movie to see with your boys.
Who cares about Harry Styles? It’s got Bane flying a spitfire!
Great male war movie: Dunkirk: Something that really happened…. women feel annoyed.
Great female war movie: Wonder Woman: Complete fantasy… women tear up and feel empowered.
Does Ms Bonner think that ”more should happen” in the movie, does she?
I haven’t seen the movie (probably won’t – I know too much actual history) but those who have seen it tell me it’s a typical war movie with men dying, guns firing, explosions happening, planes strafing and desperation planning – all of which happened in real life.
I think Ms Bonner would like the quintessential scene of the beaten up hero, having rescued the heroine, kissing in the foreground while there are chaotic explosions behind them.
Been there, done that sister.
No offense to Henry Styles, but… who?
@okrahead
And yet, Wonder Woman’s director (a woman of all things) stated recently that Wonder Woman is not a feminist hero.
http://m.scmp.com/culture/film-tv/article/2094961/wonder-woman-not-feminist-hero-says-groundbreaking-movies-female?amp=1
Meanwhile, some chick at Metro is upset because Wonder Woman is apparently too feminine and hot, ergo too stereotypical. For instance, she whines that Wonder Woman’s place of origin, Themyscira, is “a feminist utopia that consists purely of Victoria’s Secret Angels.” Never mind the author, by the name of Theresa Harold, herself looks like a stuck up bitch who wouldn’t give you the time of the day unless you drive a BMW.
And some Afghan chick on Twitter complained that Wonder Woman was, and I quote, “Wonder Woman is a thin, white, cisgender able bodied Zionist. No way in hell I’m watching that ish.” Never mind that Gadot is Jewish, who quite a number of fellas in the Alt Right would not consider white by a long shot.
https://mobile.twitter.com/cesairedae/status/871706772322611200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.metro.co.uk%2Famp%2Famp-prebid.html%3F1501620723679
Mind you, there are feminists and there are feminists. But all have something in common: none can see a shade of gray. Either they will cream their panties over a chick in tights, or they hate her for being an object of desire.
And one wonders why the Saudis don’t let their women out.
Whoops. Forgot link.
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/24/why-wonder-woman-isnt-the-feminist-fantasy-weve-been-told-it-is-6731062/amp/
I must confess, it’s difficult not to like Gal Gadot, and if her homeland in the movie is a utopia full of Victoria’s Secret angels it certainly can’t be all bad. I’m guessing had she played one of the nurses on the hospital ship in Dunkirk feminists still would have hated her. Feminism is about non-feminine women trying to get attention away from their feminine, and thus attractive, sisters.
H.L. Mencken: “Misogynist: A man who hates women as much as women hate one another.”
That is why I can never be a misogynist. I can never hate a pretty girl as her ugly sisters the feminists will.
Take ear plugs .. not for the squeals .. but for the level of noise .. though it might very well stopped me from hearing all that squealing .. I’m half deaf & ear-plugs made it very enjoyable (wished I could say that about Film’uh’Nests).
Why is envy a deadly sin? Why does covetousness itself make its way into the ten commandments?
Out of envy ugly women hate beauty. Out of covetousness weak women crave to subjugate strong men. So weak, ugly women want to rule the world and stamp out all truth and beauty. I’m talking to you, Frau Merkel. Blasted Germans are going to go and start another big war in Europe. What will Dunkirk be this time? Christians trying to escape across the pond and hoping their brothers will show up in boats to save them?
I had no clue who Harry Styles was until I read reviews of the film. He did a fine job.
felt like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness—which apparently they don’t get to do enough.
Well, yes. Next question?
A quickie review
https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com/2017/07/23/red-pill-movie-review-dunkirk/
Pingback: Does this mean there wasn’t any sobbing? | Reaction Times
how about any other marginalized group?
Did any other so called marginalized group go on to form the core of the Army that liberated northern Europe?
If telling the story of what happened is “celebrating maleness”, then apparently we should celebrate maleness all the time. If a certain movie is for men, then why should she even care to see or review it? It would be like a writer from Men’s Health suddenly feeling the need to write about the next emo-porn/romantic comedy, then complain about how it’s not more male oriented. It’s incredibly stupid for the authoress to think we shouldn’t roast her in the comments. In going to the original article, we notice that they don’t have a comments section…go figure.
Pingback: Does this mean there wasn’t any sobbing? - Top
Thank god we beat the National Socialists! Now our ships have no urinals, and cat ladies are free to insult masculinity!
“But my main issue with Dunkirk is that it’s so clearly designed for men to man-out over.”
I would love to enjoy a dream, one of the rare ones that I wake up from and actually remember, in which, going back three-quarters of a century in time, whole battalions full of spoiled, whiny, entitled Americ**ts like Mizz Bonner are sent into battle at Dunkirk (or Dieppe, or Anzio, or Normandy, or Stalingrad, or … you get the idea) against the REAL enemy as they were at the time. The carnage would make the opening scene of Saving Private Ryanlook like Fantasia by comparison – and would make for a much more satisfying movie.
Gentlemen,
If you are not angry enough yet, let me remind you :
In World War 2, US Casualties by gender :
Men : ~300,000
Women : 16
So men outnumbered women 20,000 to 1 in terms of getting shot, drowned by a heavy backpack, beheaded by Japanese prison guards, blown to bits, etc.
Of course, any man who joins the military today, despite the much lower chance of death, is a fool. Giving your life to keep Mehera Bonner safe from the Islam that her gina demands? Nothing is more beta than that.
@Anon
“Giving your life to keep American women safe from the Islam that their ginas demand”
Modifying your statement slightly, this would be what an honest military recruiting slogan would look like (others would include “the U.S. Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine Corps: keeping Israel safe to the last drop of red, white, and blue blood;” “a lifestyle mom and her babies can depend on;” “No More War! Just pretending in order to keep Lockheed-Martin in business”).
Of course since “honesty” and “military recruiting” are polar opposites…
Dunkirk celebrates White Genocide. Faggy Brits support egg-faced, pompous, shabbos goy Churchill against pro-White, based N@hzi Germany. Still promoting Holocau$tianity.
If H had won – No enslavement of White Rotherham girls by skittles,
No Londonistan,
No goigles turning cities to criminal ghettos,
No third world terrorists.
Fine, great, go forth, but if Nolan’s entire purpose is breaking the established war movie mold and doing something different—why not make a movie about women in World War II?
I’m speechless.
The movie was excellent, very enjoyable. A mini-series could expand it to include the French and German perspectives but for a one-off film it was just right. I saw it at the theater and will probably watch it again when it comes out on cable.
I am both delighted and most surprised as to the success of Dunkirk for it is a story that I would have thought would have little appeal to Americans – yet at the time of writing, eleven days after release has grossed over $100,000,000 in America. The 1958 version of the story filmed on Camber Sands and around Rye and which (I recall) was third or fourth most successful British film of the year fared poorly at the American box-office – but then it had John Mills who I suppose was not quite handsome enough. Total British disaster and not just because so many of those little boats would not have had any Urinals – I must check to see whether our new £8 Billion pound Carrier HMS Elizabeth A.M. Windsor has any Urinals.
I naturally enough grew up on British WW2 movies and particularly recall Carve Her Name with Pride about Violet Szabo a heroic female killed by the Germans whilst spying in France. That was made in 1955. Perhaps the most interesting British WW2 movie and from as early as 1957 was The One That Got Away which concerned German P.O.W Luftwaffe pilot Oberleutnant Franz von Werra who escaped successfully to Canada and thus via America and Brazil successfully returned to Germany. Germans P.O.W.s are surely a sufficiently marginalised group and Ms Szabo was surely a heroic woman. It would appear that Miss Bonner’s problem is ignorance of cinematic history.
If I may…
The quintessential British WW2 movies are escape movies such as The Wooden Horse (1950) and The Colditz Story (1955). Dunkirk (2017) like Battle of Britain(1969) are about Defence. It seems to me that American WW2 movies are fundamentally the opposite of escape/defence movies being concerned with – in true cavalry style – coming to the rescue, whether that be Iwo Jima (Sands of … 1949) or Normandy, (The Longest day 1962) or Vietnam or Korea, Green Berets (1968) and Inchon (1981). Always storming the beaches. Did you not even have a four star General known as Stormin’ Norman.
I had no idea whom Harry Styles might be. Casting Pop singers in War Movies is or was very common in Britain. Tommy Steele in Light up the Sky 1960, John Leyton in The Great Escape 1963, Guns at Batasi 1964 and Von Ryan’s Express 1965, John Lennon in How I won the War 1967 and David Bowie in Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence 1983 come to mind.
As much as feminists hate masculinity…they hate femininity all the much more. They prefer a miserable androygous state…that’s what equality is all about.
In their eyes, men celebrating masculinity is evil…women looking pretty and acting feminine is evil. They’re insane.
I saw it. Liked it.
I have no idea who Harry Styles is and couldn’t pick him out in a lineup. In fact, I was reminded of something Peggy Noonan related about, “Blackhawk Down.” Her friend remarked how difficult it was to tell the actors apart, because they all looked alike. To me, the actors in Dunkirk all looked like dark haired Englishmen (with the notable exception of Kenneth Branagh). He stands out because he’s in solo-shot scenes on The Mole and because he’s Kenneth Friggin’ Branagh.
Women are a “marginalised group”? Could’ve fooled me. They’re the most entitled “groups” ever. Didn’t you know? Women are a “group”, not a sex? Huh?
I never heard of Harry Styles.
… but if Nolan’s entire purpose is breaking the established war movie mold and doing something different …
I thought Nolan’s entire purpose was to make a historically accurate film.
Perhaps Ms. Bonner would have preferred some additional scenes of women at Dunkirk struggling against the prevalence of urinals on the evacuation ships.
@ Opus
Yes: David Bowie was actually pretty good in Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence. It was a good movie.
Lost Patrol: She loves war movies! She may, buy she doesn’t know much about them if this review is to be the guide.
Perhaps she’s confused all the bad-ass women warriors she’s seen in so many other movies with reality. Now she wonders why Dunkirk didn’t depict a kick-ass woman single-handedly rescuing all those weaker men.
@earlthomas786
I disagree. They hate Masculinity in Men not Women. They hate Femininity in Women but not Masculinity in Women.
“seems to cater to a certain type of very pretentious man who would love nothing more than to explain to me why I’m wrong about not liking it.”
Nobody wants to explain this to you. We just want you to shut up and go away.
@Dalrock
“This isn’t about petty envy”
I read this as, “This isn’t about penis envy.”
We are actually close in thought. From the research I was reading about what feminists think…they prefer the androgynous state of both genders. So they can still look female and even have some feminine traits but also think they have masculine traits (which they really don’t…they are just acting like a rebellious female). That’s why their idea of equality is a fallacy.
Another area where I’ve seen this played out quite a bit is in the feminist’s relationships. I have yet to see a full blown feminist ever with a masculine man. They either choose a lesbian or an emasculated (sometimes even a closeted gay) man. Which is why I say the easiest way to keep a feminist away is to be a man with masculinity.
Since this writer has already been justifiably raked over the coals for being anti-male, I’ll take another tack: She’s also anti-female. She claims that she think women are going to go “OMG, it’s Harry Styles!” while watching “Dunkirk.” How shallow and condescending is that?
It also shows she doesn’t know her film history. At the height of Beatlemania, John Lennon had a role in a war movie, “How I Won the War” and there was no screaming nor squealing from young girls in the theaters. It was a war film, after all. Unlike feminists, most women know how to calibrate their emotions: You scream at the concert, but put away your “OMGs!” during the wartime drama.
I’d say that this review reads like it was written by a high schooler, but high schoolers can actually be pretty bright and perceptive and I wouldn’t want to insult them by saying that.
The message is clear from the cultural left: anything that does not promote their narrative, and their narrative only (ie, multulturalism, feminism, intersectionality, anti-tradition, anti-history that is not extremely critical, etc.) will be subject to substantial critique from the cultural left. Truly they are today’s totalitarians, without any question.
I’m not invested in this issue as a whole but I kind of wonder if it’ll actually benefit them to walk down this path to the end. If you treat all opposition to your dogmatic ideological tribe as a monolithic bunch of vermin to be silenced, shamed, ostracized, exterminated etc., eventually they’ll no longer have any doubts about targeting you for destruction, turning your own methods against you, because they’ll rightly think they are cornered. And the average normie won’t feel bad about not giving a shit about you, because you’ve already done everything to alienate them.
Increasingly, I view people like Bonner assuming an unspoken role: Warning non-compliant women with ex-communication if they challenge the party line.
Because a lot of women are watching and enjoying this movie, and they’re not tut-tutting that it’s non-compliant with 200-level critical race or feminist studies classes. That means a lot of Marie-Claire’s readers attended the movie and enjoyed it.
It’s not a bad strategy. I imagine most women, if aware that the movie is inapt from a Gurrrl Power perspective, will be loathe to admit they liked it.
***
The other thing that a Bonner gets out of this is the ridicule heaped upon her by normies. This is actually major cred for her in her efforts to join the feminist nomenklatura. If intellectual men ridicule her pretensions, that ridicule verifies her woke virtue.
why not make a movie about women in World War II?
Because that movie would suck and would lose money.
The quintessential British WW2 movies are escape movies such as The Wooden Horse (1950) and The Colditz Story (1955).
To me, the quintessential British WW2 movie shows the heroic Royal Navy (The Cruel Sea, Sink the Bismarck, Battle of the River Plate) or daring British commandos (Cockleshell Heroes, Guns of Navarone, Where Eagles Dare).
It’s incredible how quickly she can change the frame from a war movie review to a feminist indignation issue.
“I thought Dunkirk was mediocre at best and NOT BECAUSE I’M SOME NAIVE WOMAN WHO DOESN’T GET IT.”
Already, men (not real men just the nebulous idea of ‘men’) are in the crosshairs for having insulted her naivety which she growls away. What a boring mind.
Days of Broken Arrows,
“Unlike feminists, most women know how to calibrate their emotions”
Where is this whole huge batch of women whose thinking hasn’t been steamrolled by feminism either directly or by proxy? It’s the Feminine Imperative and it pervades nearly all female minds, regardless of social media hashtag play.
eleven days after release has grossed over $100,000,000 in America.
Clearly only due to the presence of Harry Styles.
“I disagree. They hate Masculinity in Men not Women. They hate Femininity in Women but not Masculinity in Women.”
they hate masculinity everywhere in everyone. they hate it in men, but they especially hate “toxic masculinity” and “internalized misogyny” (aka normal sane healthy male behavior), which is everywhere at all times. they also especially hate masculinity in women because it means having to be the equal of men, which is impossible for women because men are honest and hard working, standards women are incapable of living up to.
they also hate femininity in everyone, especially because women hate competition for resources (what they reduce all their relationships down to ultimately).
I guess the movie going public prefers the ‘men-only’ theme.
I can’t wait for this feminist’s glowing review about ‘Atomic Blonde’. Sure it may bomb…but we certainly need more movies where a strong feminist lead can kick the ass of men twice her size.
I can’t wait for this feminist’s glowing review about ‘Atomic Blonde’. Sure it may bomb…but we certainly need more movies where a strong feminist lead can kick the ass of men twice her size.
And also lesbian love interests … who needs male love interests anyway, if you’re a kickass feminist?
It would be fun to turn the tables just to troll the feminists…
‘I Think ‘Atomic Blonde’ Was Mediocre at Best, and It’s Not Because I’m Some Misogynist Who Doesn’t Get It’
[Atomic Blonde is] a fictional story worthy of being told and re-told, and I really enjoy kick ass strong females in general, but still—actual stuff needs to happen. Stuff other than scenes of women beating up men twice their size, widespread promiscuity and objectification, and lesbian love scenes. If you want to argue that the non-stop violent intensity of the film was the point, and that we should feel fully immersed in the fiction like we’re living it ourselves—I present Charlize Theron a 120 pound blonde who couldn’t beat up a 15 year old boy without the help of Hollywood tricks.
White men getting slaughtered on a beach WAS the marginalized group. And they’re still being marginalized as obviously being defenseless on a beach isn’t sufficient enough suffering to have a movie made about them. I’m sure a 20 part miniseries can be drummed up of a woman back home getting unnecessarily slapped by her lover while her husband’s overseas trying to storm Monte Casino.
Dunkirk was quite good, excellent even. But as mentioned above, it is probably not the “war movie” you are expecting. My 13yo son loved it, BTW. Also, it was quite loud overall.
Two 14yo girls are the only other people in the lobby before the movie. Curious, I asked what they are going to see. “Dunkirk”. I asked them why. “Just the one we picked.” I guess this Harry Styles guy is the real answer. Don’t know him from Adam myself.
Feminist hates men that men would enjoy? Who’da thunk?
The images that feeriker conjures of women being herded out of the landing craft (at gunpoint I assume) and onto the beaches at Normandy a la Private Ryan is the most delightful thing to occur the me in weeks. Thank you for that, f-man.
Feminist hates movie that men would enjoy…
She’s using the movie to try to gain status among feminists. It doesn’t matter how polarized and separated we become; there’ll always be people who leave their ‘safe spaces’ to garner material from masculine zones and free speech platforms, then return to virtue-signal about it to their peers. Whereas the opposite isn’t true. A real man won’t venture into the safe space. He’s too busy trying to raise his family and save the universe.
@Myopia “I’m sure a 20 part miniseries can be drummed up of a woman back home getting unnecessarily slapped…”
Actually, that would be “Homes Fires.” It’s inspired by a book about the work done by the Women’s Institute during the war. The show is more focused on drama than actual work, but it includes the requisite lesbian, battered woman, “sympathetic” adulteress, etc. The abusive husband actually is a total jerk, but it’s so over-the-top it’s almost comical.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, feminists seem to be convinced that every husband “back in the day” was a control freak who could dictate her every move and no wife was allowed an opinion or choice about anything. Ergo, anything pertaining to a past era must include a psychopath husband beating his wife because he doesn’t like what she cooked for dinner.
I would think that a group of battle-weary young men, pushed by the army of history’s most evil tyrant to the edge of the continent, are actually quit marginalized indeed. But hey, I never took any Women’s Studies classes, so what do I kno?
Again, I think of my ex when she demanded my 12 year old son give her the Nintendo DS. My ex was fit, by female standards. She couldn’t overpower him, even by digging her nails into his arms. His restraint kept it from escalating, because he knew within seconds that she was no physical threat and that I was a phone call from her away.
Anecdotal, to be sure. We can always point to the US Women’s Soccer team, elite by female standards, stopping at U15 boy level to get competition, because high school teams or college teams would wipe the floor with them. Even the U15 teams (admittedly, those teams have the more serious players at ages 13-14) gets the occasional win.
It’s a 30 year old Brooklyn feminist. Who cares what she thinks
Dunkirk is amazing. Of course some are going to hate for clickbait.
Pingback: Virtue as Tradition [Mark 7] | Dark Brightness
A “lover of war movies” cannot think of any WWII movies with female leads or predominantly female casts? I can think of 20 off the top of my head, 5 of which are currently or were on netflix. Perhaps they were not sexy enough for her? Being a Japanese POW or raped by Russian soldiers isn’t quite as heroic, you see, as being a sitting duck on the beach.
Also, the violence was remarkably constrained compared to recent films, but perhaps the lulls made the next violent episode more poignant.
Saw Dunkirk last night. You want a male role model? The father who took his boat over with his two sons goes to the top of my list.
Have not, will not see the movie. When I think of Dunkirk all I see is the bloody end of the White Feather Campaign. To me its a horror movie, like The Titanic. See “Bill Burr 5 Minute stand-up” on youtube.
What happened when a man accepted a “White Feather” from a Suffragette? Dunkirk is what he went through. If he survived, and survived a few more “Dunkirks”, he got the vote. Thanks Insufferablegettes.
And the Suffragettes? They tried to “Smash the Patriarchy” in London and Moscow just like those Socialists of WWII. Then they got the vote.
She doesn’t really know war films enough to like them, let alone “love” them.
I’m confident that, for example, she has never seen The Bridge (1959), Dogs, do you want to live forever (1959), Das Boot (1981) , Stalingrad (1993), Full Metal Jacket (1987) or Der Untergang (2004). These are impressive but also rather depressing war films.
What’s fascinating to observe right now about Harry Styles and this Dunkirk film is the number of women and gay men clamoring to find out on social media in advance and even post-release whether his character dies in the film, or not?
There’s something oddly appealing for women young and old about attractive male characters sacrificing themselves and dying in the film while in love with a female protagonist (Titanic, 1997).
“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.” — Hillary Clinton
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/19981117.html
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
Tim J. Penner appears to me to be slightly adrift: there were no Suffragettes in 1940 – not by the way that I have ever believed the White Feather story. There must have been a majority of British males not in Uniform during the First World War (my paternal Grandfather who was in his mid to late thirties at the time for one) and that would have included servicemen in civies whilst on R and R. It should also be born in mind that Suffragettes were not despite the present myth-making rhetoric in their favour, popular or for that matter that numerous. WW1 was in any case so massively popular that conscription was not introduced until (I seem to recall) 1917 – I have some inherited photographs that show the enthusiasm.
I see that in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Dunkirk has in its two weeks of theatrical release grossed some $35,000,000. Given that our population is only one sixths of yours that pro-rata suggests a take up rate of twice that in America and yet in America the movie has for the last two weeks been the box-office leader. Clearly, in England, Dunkirk has very much struck a nerve.
It is also perhaps worth observing that those men caught on the beach at Dunkirk would have been professional soldiers rather than conscripts. The soldiers at Dunkirk were members of the British Expeditionary Force which had been in Europe since September 1939 – that is to say from the time of the commencements of hostilities and thus pre-conscription.
My female cousin, whose father was actually there and told stories of it, was in tears for most of the movie. She said it really brought it all alive for her, and it was almost too much if it became personal in any way, which is was in this case.
I haven’t seen the movie yet — how long did it take for one of the boats at Dunkirk to make it from Dunkirk back to England? If a soldier made it onto a boat, how good were his chances of making it to England?
There are movies made about every possible topic. I can’t believe people are whining about ONE film that is focused on white males. Everybody knows already that the film is about white males. If that puts you off, don’t buy a ticket.
OFF TOPIC: I have been watching Endeavor on Amazon. Season 3, episode 1 featured a fantastic Stately Home that I had never seen in any other film, but the credits didn’t list the house. Is there a website in which all the castles and stately homes used in films are listed?
With the greatest of respect Laura the movie is NOT about white males, but about the rescue of the British Army – that it’s soldiers are white is neither here nor there though that they are white is concomitant with their being British – but I know what you mean. That it is now politically incorrect to make such a movie reveals things that are not I think appropriate for this blog. In that respect it is also the case that all of those soldiers would have been or seen themselves as Christians and usually of the established church and I would also bet that considerably fewer than the percentage usually and presently given for the proclivity would have been homo-sexually inclined – the insult of choice in those days was neither Homo nor the current Pedo but Wanker i.e. can’t get a wife – this was the case even when I was a teenager: masturbation was frowned upon and ladies certainly never did such things. Has anyone complained about those further obvious casting defects, yet!
A cross-channel ferry would take the better part of two hours to cross from Dunkirk (if it had a port) to the British coast, I would say, on the basis that ferries take ninety minutes to cross the shorter distance to and from Calais which in case you did not know was part of England’s realm until 1558. How long a small craft would take I am not sure but probably a touch longer.
Am unable to assist on Stately Homes.
@Opus
As I said, I haven’t seen the movie yet. I seldom watch movies made after 1965, other than period dramas. Of course the movie is about the British Army, but the complaints about the movie seem to be focused on the fact that minorities and women are not featured in the film, even though people acknowledge that doing so would have been historically inaccurate. Everybody laughs when they see Queen Elizabeth I emoting on the screen with a radiator under the window behind her, and yet the reviewers expect an army from yesteryear to be depicted with the demographic mix that is in the army today. The man who made the movie would have been criticized no matter how the film turned out, so I’m glad he went for historical accuracy.
I was astonished the first time I read about the evacuation of most of the children of London to rural areas (September 1939?) and saw an accompanying collection of photographs of the evacuation. Nothing like that would ever be possible now in the USA, as no one here would trust the government with their children, and the attempt to match children up by race, religion, diet (Kosher/vegetarian/vegan/halal) etc., would be impossible. I read a brief piece by an Englishman who was put in charge of placing children in his jurisdiction, and it was astonishing. He was told one evening what towns he was in charge of, and how many children would be arriving the very next day, and he got out a map and stayed up till the wee hours working out a plan for local transportation and billeting and the next day when the kiddies arrived it all went smoothly. Pretty impressive for pre-computer days.
@Opus: I am sure you are right about the history of that. To me Dunkirk is the kind of thing that happened when men acted on receiving a White Feather, even if the men at Dunkirk did not get one themselves.
I remember reading that Margret Sanger, who helped found Planned Parenthood, promoted the idea girls back home should be jealous of the men galavanting through Europe. Dunkirk is men’s version of galavanting. This movie shows the reality of men’s work.
There is no likelihood of a movie being made about the men that got a White Feather. They may not have been at Dunkirk because of the Suffragettes, but they lived the life of the White Feather recipients. The Dunkirk movie shows what men who went, had to go through on the front lines.
@Tim J Penner
In Feminist mythology the British Army hemmed in on the North French coast, would have been in Feminist reality sunning themselves on the beaches at Dunkirk, their li-los open before the arrival of the German tourists of the Wehrmarkt. How lucky can you get!
A correction: I suggested that Dunkirk does not have a port; that is wrong, it does, but in my defence (I have never been there) the majority of the cross channel ro-ros from Dover sail to either Calais or Boulogne (both of which I do know – especially Calais).
Pingback: There was no sobbing or squealing, and Merlin was magnificent. | Dalrock
Pingback: There was no sobbing or squealing, and Merlin was magnificent. - Top
Regarding Ms Bonner and Harry Styles: It is women, and ONLY women, who scream themselves stupid at music concerts. Why?
Graeme Edge, drummer for the Moody Blues, recalls an incident where, they were the support act for the Beatles. Edge was mistaken for one of them:
Men don’t do this. This is exclusively a women’s thing, and there’s something badly messed up about it.